The Myth of Syrian Stability

By MUSTAFA NOUR
NYT

Damascus, Syria

MY foreign friends always tell me when they visit that the comment they hear most often from taxi drivers, shop owners and others is, “In Syria, there is security.”

True, Syria does seem much more stable than its neighbors. And though I often find it difficult to ascertain the opinions of my countrymen, especially in matters concerning politics and the regime, many do believe that it’s a fair bargain: limits on personal and political freedoms in exchange for the stability that is so dear to them. And those limits are quite strict: Syria has been ruled by emergency law since 1963, under a strong-fisted security force; opposing (or even just differing) opinions can lead to arrest, imprisonment or, at the very least, travel restrictions.

For example, I have two separate restrictions, from two different branches of the security forces, that forbid me from leaving Syria. One of these was put in place simply for attending a human rights conference in a neighboring country.

This apparent lack of real discontent over the restrictions on our freedoms meant that when the revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East began in January, the Syrian regime considered itself immune to them. President Bashar al-Assad told The Wall Street Journal that the situation here was different and said that “real reform is about how to open up the society and how to start dialogue.” For years, he said, his government had been having just that dialogue with its people, and he was unconcerned about calls on Facebook and Twitter for Syrians to revolt.

(More here.)